Azamat,
Unfortunately, this is the one project I've done where I was not
allowed to release the results. I hope never to do such a project
again. There is however a great deal of relevant material created since
that project in SUMO the MId-Level Ontology (MILO) and some material
that would be relevant in the FinancialOntology, all available at
www.ontologyportal.org (01)
see Building
<http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:4010/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=en&term=Building>
Room
<http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:4010/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=en&term=Room>
StreetAddressFn
<http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:4010/sigma/Browse.jsp?lang=en&kb=SUMO&term=StreetAddressFn>
Loan
<http://sigma.ontologyportal.org:4010/sigma/Browse.jsp?kb=SUMO&lang=en&term=Loan> (02)
etc. (03)
Adam (04)
Azamat wrote:
> Adam wrote:
> ''As an example, we used a common ontology approach in mapping a set of
> real estate databases some years ago. They all had the same domain, but
> different naming and organization of tables. We first created a formal
> ontology of real estate. Next we created a common database by
> hand-compiling the ontology into a relational DB (Oracle).''
>
> Adam,
> I am looking how a common ontology is to be applied to real estate
> matters. As far as i learnt, good sources are rather few: The Ontology
> and Modelling of Real Estate Transactions, published by Ashgate. Would
> much appreciate to have access to your real estate ontology, if it is
> somehow documented.
>
> Azamat
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Pease" <adampease@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 7:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
>
>
>> Pat,
>> We then
>> mapped individual databases one at a time to the common DB. The first
>> few DBs generated some small changes in the common DB and then it was
>> smooth sailing. We had several dozen DBs mapped, integrated and running
>> on the server backend, up 24/7, before the dot-com company ran out of
>> money.
>> It's anecdotal evidence only of course. We could have tried to
>> create a data warehouse, bottom-up and that might have worked, although
>> I think we then would have taken a lot of effort along the way to define
>> precisely what each term meant, rather than doing it once, formally and
>> ahead of time. This application couldn't have used pair-wise
>> integration since the goal was a common DB, but one might imagine a
>> distributed application where all the individual DB owners wanted to
>> communicate. If they each had developed a pair-wise mapping between
>> their DB and everyone else's it would have been the N^2 case, and
>> clearly less efficient, and more error prone than creating a common
>> schema.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>> Cassidy, Patrick J. wrote:
>>> Actually, N^2 applies to the terms of ontologies also. The notion of
>>> using existing equivalence of two terms in two ontologies to reduce the
>>> effort of mapping might work, but only partly because:
>>> (1) one has to know the equivalence mapping in all the other
>>> ontologies -- not a trivial amount of work, and certainly not 0. If
>>> there are a large number of ontologies, one has to inspect the
>>> equivalence mappings of **every one**!! Try it, you won't like it.
>>> (2) exact equivalence of intended meaning occurs in probably less
>>> than half the terms in any two ontologies, and there is often meaning
>>> overlap which is much more work to reduce
>>> (3) *any* structural difference (difference in the relations) of two
>>> terms in two ontologies will make them formally different (different
>>> inferences) even if their intended meanings are the same.
>>>
>>> Even if it seemed to work on a very small number of ontologies, it
>>> is totally impractical when you get over 10. If you know of an example
>>> where it has been done, let us know.
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>> Patrick Cassidy
>>> CNTR-MITRE
>>> 260 Industrial Way West
>>> Eatontown NJ 07724
>>> Eatontown: 732-578-6340
>>> Cell: 908-565-4053
>>> pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>>>> Christopher Menzel
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:09 AM
>>>> To: [ontolog-forum]
>>>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] A "common basis"
>>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>>>>> Adam,
>>>>>
>>>>> Adam Pease wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chris,
>>>>>> Many thanks. I was really addressing a point that you weren't
>>>>>> making, but which is all too common.
>>>>>> I'm sympathetic to using SUMO for semantic interoperability.
>>>>>> When I've done projects in that area, it has worked well. At the
>>>
>>>>>> risk of stating the obvious, the advantage, at least in
>>>> theory, of
>>>>>> a common model over a federated approach is that one has mappings
>>>
>>>>>> linear in the number of products needing integration, rather than
>>>
>>>>>> potentially N^2.
>>>>> I am glad you mentioned the "potentially N^2" issue. I have seen
>>>>> that claim on a number of occassions but never with what I
>>>>> considered a convincing explanation of why it must be so.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, assume that I have terms A, B, and C, all of which I
>>>>> wish to say represent the same subject.
>>>>>
>>>>> While I agree that it is possible to say A = B, A = C, B =
>>>> C, ....,
>>>>> isn't that an implementation choice?
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, if I have the mapping A = B and then later add B =
>>>
>>>>> C, do I really need A = C? The effect of the first two mappings is
>>>
>>>>> sufficient to reach the desired result.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it should be noted that relying upon separate mappings does
>>>>> result in a problem Steve Newcomb has faced with his topic map
>>>>> implementation, that is how to determine when "all" the mappings
>>>>> have been performed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, or is the N^2 claim based on a requirement that in order to
>>>>> apply whatever inferences are available at A to C, a direct
>>>> mapping
>>>>> is required? Still, that seems to be an implementation
>>>> question and
>>>>> not one of the actual mapping.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a particular methodology of mapping is being presumed. I
>>>>> would assume once the mapping is complete, then the outcomes of
>>>>> inferencing will be the same. Yes?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have usually encountered the N^2 comment when a particular
>>>>> vocabulary is being advocated. Noting that an implied mapping is
>>>>> being peformed even by those who advocate a particular vocabulary,
>>>
>>>>> but that the implied mapping is not (usually) available for others
>>>
>>>>> to inspect or use. (The same can be the result using topic maps.
>>>>> There is no requirement that a mapping in an implementation, which
>>>
>>>>> may be commercial intellectual property, be disclosed. For
>>>> the most
>>>>> part, I think greater disclosure can potentially lead to more
>>>>> interoperability. But, there are tradeoffs and reasonable people
>>>>> will draw the line on disclosure at different places.)
>>>> I don't think this is the issue Adam had in mind, Patrick. I
>>>> believe
>>>> Adam's N^2 remark doesn't have anything to do with the terms in a
>>>> particular vocabulary (though there may in fact *be* an N^2 problem
>>>> of some sort lurking there), but with the number of the languages
>>>> used by the ontologies one is trying to integrate. Suppose we have
>>>> four ontologies, each one written in a separate language -- say Loom,
>>>> Classic, SNEPS, and KL-1 (chosen because I have some appropriate
>>>> graphics from a presentation I gave a few years ago :-) :
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>>> Subscribe/Config:
>>> http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>
> (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|